to unredact their names as they appeared in telephone convos/wiretaps transcripts...usually they would be referred to as "american #1" or something similar, bc the collection is "supposed" to be incidental to the real target...in other words, they spy on a foreign ambassador (say kislyak) talking to an ameriican. they name kislyak but leave the other name blacked out. supposedly only the tippy-top of the "need to know" can request an unmasking; everybody and their brother was unmasking in the obama administration.
US citizens' names are supposed to be redacted in intelligence reports on foreigners' phone calls and other communications because of the 4th amendment. Certain government officials have the authority to, under certain circumstances, look under the redactions and see the identity of the US citizens. That is what "unmasking" refers to in this context.
No, you’re thinking of a FISA warrant. If you obtain a FISA you can then go “two hops” from that person in monitoring communications. So if you have the warrant on Person A and they are communicating with Person B, you can then pull all communications of Person B, as well as any communications of Persons C that are in communication with Person B.
Unmasking refers to a feature of SIGINT collections; when the NSA or FBI gathers the communications of a foreign national that is incidentally communicating with an American, the American’s name appears as “U.S. Person 1” or something along those lines in the transcript. Certain people in the government can then request that that person’s identity be “unmasked” if the request meets two criteria: it has to be in furtherance of the official duties of the requester, and also contextually important to the investigation in question.
I thought 'unmasking' was something done to an intelligence operative; i.e., 'blow their cover.
What does the word 'unmask' mean in this context ?
to unredact their names as they appeared in telephone convos/wiretaps transcripts...usually they would be referred to as "american #1" or something similar, bc the collection is "supposed" to be incidental to the real target...in other words, they spy on a foreign ambassador (say kislyak) talking to an ameriican. they name kislyak but leave the other name blacked out. supposedly only the tippy-top of the "need to know" can request an unmasking; everybody and their brother was unmasking in the obama administration.
So if the most powerful people in government have to request to unmask, who are the people going through the transcripts and doing the maskings?
US citizens' names are supposed to be redacted in intelligence reports on foreigners' phone calls and other communications because of the 4th amendment. Certain government officials have the authority to, under certain circumstances, look under the redactions and see the identity of the US citizens. That is what "unmasking" refers to in this context.
Doesn't it mean that whoever was "unmasked", then they could listen in on whoever that person was communicating with? No matter who they were?
I'm not sure if this is correct, though?
No, you’re thinking of a FISA warrant. If you obtain a FISA you can then go “two hops” from that person in monitoring communications. So if you have the warrant on Person A and they are communicating with Person B, you can then pull all communications of Person B, as well as any communications of Persons C that are in communication with Person B.
Unmasking refers to a feature of SIGINT collections; when the NSA or FBI gathers the communications of a foreign national that is incidentally communicating with an American, the American’s name appears as “U.S. Person 1” or something along those lines in the transcript. Certain people in the government can then request that that person’s identity be “unmasked” if the request meets two criteria: it has to be in furtherance of the official duties of the requester, and also contextually important to the investigation in question.
Thanks for clarifying this.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.
I’m wondering the same thing.